About your Search

20140226
20140306
STATION
MSNBCW 30
CNNW 17
ALJAZAM 10
KQED (PBS) 7
COM 5
KNTV (NBC) 5
KGO (ABC) 4
CNBC 3
CSPAN 3
KPIX (CBS) 3
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 3
SFGTV 3
KTVU (FOX) 2
WRC (NBC) 2
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 108
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 108 (some duplicates have been removed)
. and if not because religion is a protected group there could be a reo religious claim brought against them. gay people are not protected from any kind of discrimination by the religious print. >> in that analogy, the gay group is not a religious group so if this law passed they couldn't argue on religious grounds that they wouldn't print up this stuff for the west borough baptist church. >> exactly right. what's really striking about this, nobody except for at the very end i thought it was really telling he used the example of gay people. nobody is willing either tonight or in your prior interviews to say the word "gay" in defending bill. an entire interview they tap danced around the word "gay." if you go to yarbrough, he was up front about saying the situation in new mexico where a photographer was forced to take photographs of same sex couples commitment ceremony or wedding. >> she was sued because she wouldn't in new mexico which violates the state statutes in new mexico protecting discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. but you're right. early on a lot of lawmakers were
appalling to hear a dialogue that talks about using religion to discriminate against both myself and my community. you know, when i was in high sdoo school, i was actually assaulted because i was gay. as a result, i spent most of my life down playing the fact. you know, i don't ride in pride parades and i don't really wear it on my cuff, but i really feel compelled to really put it out there. you know, i don't think that we deserve a bill like this anywhere in this country. >> joining me now, damian klinko, the arizona state representative you just heard from and washington post columnist jonathan capehart. what made you speak about the bill the way you did, using your own personal reference, which as you said is not something that you are inclined to do. >> i used my own story because this is a personal attack against me and everyone in the lgbt community in the state of arizona. the community doesn't deserve this sort of treatment. and i don't think there's ever an excuse that we should sanction discrimination against a minority group. it makes me sad and disappointed in a state that
across the country. here's the meat of 1062 in arizona. "exercise of religion means the practice of or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief." here is hb 376 in ohio. "exercise of religion means the practice or observance of religion. it includes but is not limited to the ability to act or the refusal to act in a manner that is substantially motivated by one's sincerely held religious belief, whether or not it's central to a larger system of larger belief." it's almost identical language, and that's no accident. sb 1062 and hb 376 and legislation in other states all share the same legal genetic code traceable back to a number of christian conservative special interest groups in the case of 1062, an outfit called the center for arizona policy, another called the alliance defending freedom didn't just push for the bill they also helped write for the bill much that's what representatives from both organ
place megyn kelly has a theory. >> we hear from people on the religious right who feel religion is under attack. i look at this bill and wonder whether it's an overreaction to people who feel under attack. >> jon: good point. an overreaction? why would people of faith, where would arizonans have gotten the idea that religion is under attack in this country. >> is our nation losing religious foundation? >> should but be punished for your faith? >> who is to blame for the holy breakdown. >> christmas under attack. >> it's a war on easter. it's a war on religion. >> american assault on religion. >> it's under attack. >> religious liberty is under attack. >> i don't understand the assault on christianity? >> unity and faith comes under fire. >> jon: why would religious people overreact to that [ male announcer ] when you switch to sprint's new framily plan, friends are like family, so who's gonna be in yours? let's get a sound guy and some roadies. [ male announcer ] but the more people you add, the lower the rate. how 'bout sketchy jeff? he gets billed separately, right? [ male announcer ]
, politics played a part in arizona's battle of religion, discrimination and pay rights, but big businessmen may have really tipped the scales. >>> join the club! seriously, clubs for young job seekers. plus google glass, wearable art for tech, i'm david shuster in for ali velshi, this is "real money." this is "real money" and you are the most important part of show so join our live conversations for the next half our on twitt twitter,@aj realmoney. >>> five states have similar scaled religious predom bills before their legislatures like the law vetoed in arizona. about the potential economic consequences of moving forward, already there are 18 states including arizona with laws chmed by religious freedom activists that mirror a federal law protecting a person's right to exercise his religion. but the legislation in arizona would have gone further, let owners of businesses refuse service, against gays and other marginalized groups. think muslims and mormons. jan brewer said her legislation went too far. but business big interests like chamber of commerce and companies called marriott, americ
for businesses to discriminate against lbgt people. it was pushed by people who fear that the freedom of religion is under attack. but she pushed back saying there were no instances in arizona of religious freedom taking a backseat to lbgt right. >> senate bill 1062 does not address a specific concern related to religious liberty in arizona. i have not heard of one example in arizona where business owners' religious liberty has been violated. >> the thing is, arizona is not an outlier here anymore. at least 12 other states are looking at similar bills. oregon could even see something on its ballot this year. several of these efforts have run into roadblocks, sure, or even political abandonment following the outcry in arizona. but it is, we think, all part of a larger strategy on the right, invoking religion as a trump card in venues where there was actually a consensus that other, shall we say, nonreligious values rule. i'm thinking about like profits in the corporate board room or science in the public hospital. and where arizona's effort failed spectacularly, a more careful interpretation and v
of religion bill, and peter sprigg, who supports it. what should government do if religious freedom lets some people discriminate? tonight on "crossfire." >> welcome to "crossfire." i'm van jones on the left. >> imt s.e. cupp on the right. guests on opposite sides of arizona's religious freedom bill. both major league baseball and the nfl are playing intense pressure on governor jan brewer tonight. mlb will neither support for tolerate any word, attitudes or actions that imperil the inclusive communities that we have strived to foster within our game. there's word that the nfl might move the super bowl out of arizona. look, i'm a republican, i'm for religious liberty, i am not for this bill. i think it goes too far. but it does raise important questions, not just about religious freedom, but market freedom. and the government should not compel business owners to provide services to everyone no matter what. and if you think i'm wrong, i bet i can change your mind tonight. >> you're pretty persuasive, but you're up against a big tide of public opinion on this particular set of issues. we're goi
a bill that would allow businesses to refuse services to gays and lesbian by invoking religion. jan brewer vetoed the bill. but cecilia vega reports it will not stop a nationwide debate. >> reporter: it was the arizona bill that ignited a national firestorm. >> nobody rides in the back of the bus and everybody sits at the lunch counter. we fought that battle once. that's what this battle is. >> reporter: with polls showing a public shift on gay rights. a majority of americans now support same-sex marriage. the pressure for arizona governor jan brewer to veto the bill was fierce. major american companies came out swinging, calling arizona's law bad for business. in the end, brewer vetoed the bill. >> religious liberty is a core american and arizona value. so is non-discrimination. >> reporter: this as some of the most conservative states have become the new battle ground in the same-sex marriage war. a federal judge striking down texas' ban. so-called religious freedom laws like the one so fiercely debated in arizona, now seen as yet another weapon in the fight by supporters of the b
to refuse service to a individual if that owner believes doing so would violate their religion. it is important to note that similar laws have been struck down in new mexico and we respect the freedom of religion, it cannot be used for a exkoos for individuals to treat residence of that state whether it is [inaudible] based upon some perceived identification and treating them as inferior based on their religious beliefs mpt 1062 is a dangerous precedent [inaudible] so long as they claim office under their religious beliefs. i want to note that since the state legislator enacted sb 1062 a nov civil rights leader and officials and businesses and mbs of different parts of the industry including the torest of industry flout the country have come out against 106 fwo and urged governor [inaudible] in fact arizona senators bob [inaudible] peerpal that were in support of the bill sent letter to the senate and governor urgeer her not to sign this bill. as the mayor of [inaudible] i think it is important for us in san francisco, a sitee that has lodge been at the for front of protecti
's right to exercise his religion. but the legislation in arizona would have gone further, let owners of businesses refuse service, against gays and other marginalized groups. think muslims and mormons. jan brewer said her legislation went too far. but business big interests like chamber of commerce and companies called marriott, american airlines, apple and petsmart. in 1994 the national football league moved the super bowl out of arizona when it refused to make martin luther king a national holiday in their state. this week, the nfl threatened to take next year's super bowl out of the grand canyon state again. the next battle ground appears to be georgia where lawmakers are considering legislation similar to arizona's already big business is must mustering. sexual orientation are never mentioned in these bills. atlanta-based american airlines, say, mutual respect and dignity, the 165 million customers we serve every year. delta strongly post office these measures and we join the business community and urging state officials reject these proposals. for more, we go to stephanie stanto
does. >> in arizona, unlike other states, while there are protections based on rarks religion -- race, religion, national origin, there's none on sexual orientation. so already a business can say, "i don't serve gays", this is deflated. does it grant protection for gays or businesses to go ahead and discriminate. i think what it has done is shined the light on the fact that arizona is a state that does not offer protection for gays. folks rallied around that saying "why not?" >> how has it hurt the state? >> arizona had a history of problems, whether it's pr problems or not. after the governor of arizona cancelled a holiday for reverent mart mart martin luther king, a lot pulled out. if it does not change the laws, it underscores the question of does arizona think of itself as a friendly state. does it see itself as a place welcoming to everyone. for a company like apple. apple decided to build a plant here with 1200 employees. they are a gay-friendly company. they may think "do we want to located a plant where some. our employees may not feel welcome" >> what does it say about the st
services, perhaps. someone on the basis of the fact that they are homosexual and their religion forbids homosexuality, their sincere about it. it's a sincere belief they should be able to do that. that's an order of magnitude greater than the legal right to deny services to a gay wedding where religion is clearly involved in the sacriment of marriage. >> we hear from folks on the religious right who say they feel religion is under attack. >> i look at this bill and wonder whether this is a reaction, an over reaction to people who feel under attack on this score. and in the end, you know, they may have struck back in a way that's deeply offensive to many, and potentially dangerous to folks who are gay and lesbians who need medical services and other services denied potentially. >> that's right, and i think it's a little hard to tell, with the bill not having been signed and put into effect and tested as it would be in the courts, exactly how the bill would play out. if in fact as the critics claim, it would go so far as to allow a christian doctor who was deeply conservative in his relig
're homosexual and their religion for bids homosexuality, that seems to me that is a magnitude greater than legal rights to deny services to a gay wedding where religion is purely involved in the sacrament of marriage. >> what is this about? we hear from folks on the religious right they say they feel religion is under attack i look at the bill and wonder whether this is a reaction, an overreaction, to people who feel under attack on this score, and in, in the end, you know, they may have thrust back in a way that is deeply offensive in a way to many and dangerous to folks who are -- needing medical services being denied. >> well, that is right. and i think it's a little hard to tell with the bill not having been signed and put into affect and tested, it was a would be in the courts. exactly how the bill would play out f it's fact it would go so far as to allow christian doctor deeply conservative in his views to deny treatment it's hard to imagine this, but i suppose it's possible, if that is the case it seems to be a big huge overreach. but i, look. this goes to a larger question. it's do peopl
for that in religion. we're talking about marriages, about those ceremonies that really when you participate in them as described in the package about being artistic, you're affirming of something that runs counter to your religious beliefs. >> you're saying i can't ban -- i have the bill in front of me two pages for me saying you can do this if the person's refusal to act is moat have aed by religious belief. you're saying to me if i'm -- someone could ban me from coming in if i was married to another woman but not if i was simply a lesbian and not married to the woman? it's gay marriage that's your problem? >> that is -- it sets in place this has to be a religious belief that is deeply held and you can't just come up and create a religion. you can't come up and say, i'm not going to serve somebody this food and that would be inconsistent with a christian world view. christians want to serve people. where the issue is, and this is what happened in new mexico, what drove this was that you had a christian photography if i company that was sued for not photographing a same sex wedding ceremony. that's
in arizona this week and in you began uganda. a huge ongoing clash between religion and tolerance in my view, which is playing itself out good and bad in places. great in many ways. you're seeing a lot of gay rights being encouraged around america, for example, but in arizona a big backwards step in terms of the thinking of some people there. what's the way around this in terms of -- i have great respect for people who are very religious and interpret the bible in a certain way and it makes them have views about things like homosexuality or whatever it may be. i just don't like it when people who don't agree with something use bigoted rhetoric. i think that's a step too far. but there's a wider issue here of tolerance. and you guys are great examples of very intolerant, implaquable divides coming together. what do you think, roma? how's the best way to handle it? >> i think that perhaps as christian people we become known as people who speak out against things instead of being people who speak out for. and instead of what we oppose it's what we propose. and i think we propose love. i mean, w
to gays and lesbians for religions. it was supposed to be a safeguard tore religion but it is too divisive. >> i believe the bill has the potential th potential to cause more problems than solve problems. >> the bill drew vocal criticism from civic leaders business interests and state economic groups. >>> two members of former new england patriot eric hernandez's entourage is due in court today. hernandez fiancee was indicted on charges of perjury. she has treated not guilty. carlos or tease wegon ortiz wi appear today. he pleaded not guilty to accessory charges. hernandez is awaiting trial after also pleading not guilty. >> the road rage assault case will be back in court today. the detective is scheduled for a control hearing in new york. he's pleaded not guilty to gang assault charges in connection with a man being pulled from his suv and beaten in front of his family. >>> there will be no bags allowed at the boston marathon this year. officers are stepping up security after last year's deadly bombing. i a attackers used backpacks this year. runners will be allowed to check gear but ev
not of religion, necessarily, but of money and money matters and talks. you know that. >> absolutely. i see this as a business story. anyway, we appreciate your story very much. free market capitalism, it's blind to things like race, religion, color, gender and sexuality. that's the economics of it. while i have enormous respect for religious freedom and beliefs, i just don't see this as the key issue in the discussion. that's why i think governor jan brewer should veto what really amounts to a gay discrimination bill and an anti-business bill as well. but many people disagree with me. here now to discuss outgoing business insider, politics editor, josh bare row and we welcome kathy, senior fellow at the family research council and spokesperson for the u.s. catholic bishops. kathy, let me begin with you. you're talking to a pro life catholic. you probably know that. >> i do. >> on this one, i think the capitalist free market principles quite frankly trumped the religious issues. tell me why you disagree. >> this is the same balancing test that ted kennedy and chuck schumer voted into federa
businesses to use religion as an excuse to legally refuse service to anybody. gosh, now that's a pretty broad-brush, you know. no matter what brewer decides, it hasn't been fast enough. at the center of the storm is this person right here. you know what, there's just a damn good political operative in every state in america, isn't there? here's a good one for the conservatives, here name is kathy her rod. she's the president of the center for arizona policy. she's the architect of 1062. kathy herrod is not an elected official but wields power. she may be more powerful than the governor herself in arizona. >> in 2011, we reached a pinnacle for us that the arizona legislature over the last 15 years has passed 101 bills supported by center for arizona policy. those bills run the gamut of life, marriage and family and re religious liberty, we're blessed we've reached 100 bills and looking forward to the next 100. >> they're very blessed. there are hundreds of people like kathy herrod who work in the background to get this going, crafting legislation and then they push their own agendas. where are
to see again that religion was used to veil discrimination. it was just really a disappointing piece of legislation that it even came forward at all, and that in 2014 we're evening discussing this time of policy. i saw you on lawrence o'donnell's show last night, and you said you normally don't make public reference to your sexuality, but you had to take a strong stand, given what was happens in your home state. >> you know, i think sometimes you have to stand up and speak for what's right. when a bill like this moves through the political process, you know, whether it was discriminating against the lbgt community or another minority group, it's important to stand up and speak for what's right and speak from the heart. if my story helped illuminate that or provided insight to the other members of the house of representatives, to the type of impact it would have on individuals, then i hope that it helped. >> it's interesting, many decisions we have seen in our country have been made through the motivations of money, whether you person was afraid they would lose money or could stand to
with politics. how will the debates over freedom and religion and gay rights play into the 2014 campaign? andian rand paul is urging caution in the gop's fight with president obama. >> there are times when people are using language that shouldn't be used. i recently criticized someone for using some of that lock. i'm not going to bring it up, but i will say that we can disagree with the president without calling him names. >> "meet the press" is brought to you by boeing, where the drive to build something better inspires us every day. [ male announcer ] we know they're out there. you can't always see them. but it's our job to find them. the answers. the solutions. the innovations. all waiting to help us build something better. something more amazing. a safer, cleaner, brighter future. at boeing, that's what building something better is all about. ♪ at boeing, that's what building something better is all about. so our business can be on at&t's network for $175 a month? yup. all 5 of you for $175. so oour clients need a on at&t's netwlot of attention.nth? there's unlimited talk and text. we're
will the debates over freedom and religion and gay rights play into the 2014 campaign? and why rand paul is urging caution in the gop's fight with president obama. >> there are times when people are using language that shouldn't be used. i recently criticized someone for using some of that language. i'm not going to bring it up, but i will say that we can disagree with the president without calling him names. >> "meet the press" is brought to you by boeing, where the drive to build something better inspires us every day. [ female announcer ] who are we? we are the thinkers. the job jugglers. the up all-nighters. and the ones who turn ideas into action. we've made our passions our life's work. we strive for the moments where we can say, "i did it!" ♪ we are entrepreneurs who started it all... with a signature. legalzoom has helped start over 1 million businesses, turning dreamers into business owners. and we're here to help start yours. this is mike. his long race day starts with back pain... ...and a choice. take 4 advil in a day which is 2 aleve... ...for all day relief. "start your engines" >>
against gays on the basis of religion. but iowa congressman steve king is still defending that law. why? king says that sex orientation is what he calls self-professed behavior. and therefore he says business owners might not know just who they can or cannot discriminate against. >> it's clear in the civil rights section of the code that you can't discriminate against people based upon -- i'm not sure i got the list right, but race, creed, religion, color of skin, those kind of things. and there is nothing mentioned in there on self-professed behavior. the one thing i reference when i say self-professed is how do you know who to discriminate against? they have to tell you. and are they then setting up a case? is this about bringing a grievance or is it actually about a service they would like to have. >> so what mr. king is saying there is that customers could claim to be gay just to entrap business owners into discriminating against them so they could then seek legal reparations. here is a further question. is religion not by his wording also self-professed? >>> finally, "12 years a sl
in georgia yes two bills with religion our liberty in their titles and were seen as a way to possibly discriminate against gay men and lesbian, go down in that. also in another conservative state. we are seeing a tidal wave on this issue that i think will be hard for people to resist in just about any corner of it. >> yeah, you put it that way. that's extraordinary, coming from how long you've been covering these state and national issues. jackie, when you look at the legal issues here which as we've said we're -- which combined with the political legislature, and then something else, jackie, which is the fact that these issues are being covered differently, i think, and not covered always on the sometimes conservative terms of calling it religious liberty. a lot of people support religious liberty, but they don't think that means it should be a cover for discrimination. >> well, yeah, i think one of the things that's been interesting, particularly with the republican party is the strain of libertarianism that's been infused recently, which is another reason why i think you see some r
burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, a rule applied to everybody. now what the law does, what the law would do, this law that the governor is looking at, is make a couple of amendments. first of all, it would not apply just to a person but to a business as well. so a business could assert a religious freedom interest. and basically what it would do is give businesses who refuse to serve someone for religious reasons a defense if they get sued. so that's how the law would change the current religious freedom restoration act. it would apply to businesses. they could go to court if they're sued and say, you know, it was our religious -- this is our religious freedom. it would violate it to serve someone if we believe that would interfere with our practices and beliefs. >> so, pete, there are people who are making the argument against the law saying, well, listen, maybe a muslim business owner will say, i don't want to serve christians or maybe the law could be used in some other way. somebody who had an objection, let's sa
. >>> arizona governor jan brewer was forced to veto legislation that would use religion to codify hate and deny basic rights. major corporations like american airlines, at&t, the nfl and mlb, in addition to business leaders throughout the state urged the governor to veto the bill. while similar measures have been introduced in about a dozen other republican-controlled states like kansas, south dakota and tennessee, by the end of the week, the moral and economic arguments seem to have had an impact. now this comes as we've seen a rapidly growing acceptance of lbgt americans and issues like same-sex marriage. a federal judge ordered kentucky to immediately begin recognizing same-sex marriages from other states. so that suggests to me that the reason for the proliferation of these hateful measures is fear. just like the anti-women's rights and anti-voting rights legislation we've seen in states, these measures represent fear of a changed reality. but the question now is whether or not the events of last week represent a final tipping point in ensuring equal rights for lbgt americans. let's bring i
to gays or people of religions that do things they don't agree with. several state senators regret their vote for this bill but one republican is still supporting this. >> they are free agents. felt if they have responded to all of the pressure, it has been intense, that is okay. they are all good friends of mine. steve pierce voted for this bill but now he is ptelling the governor he hopes she vetoes it. how do you respond to your colleague that says you and others have caved on this bill? >> he is a good friend. we have not caved. we had reservations at the beginning and we saw the outcry and realized it wasn't right. >> the bill says a business owner, church owner or coperation can deny service if motivated by religious belief if it burdens their belief. what did afraid would happen? >> it has gone from reality into perception and what is perceived is overriding of the bill. perception is it is a bad and going to be specific to gays. we didn't intend it that way. my colleague and i never thought it would be like that but that is the perception and horrible for the damage it is g
their religion not just in the synagogue but in the church, but seven days a week and in their personal lives and business. >> what happens if that clashes with another person's beliefs and position? >> that is always what we have to wrestle with in our society is whether two things can coexist in the same space. >> at the state capitol, the pressure mounted on a governor who has made controversial decisions before to veto the bill. those organizing next year super bowl here called for a detailed. companies including apple who are bringing a new factory in 2000 jobs to the state. for business first governor, the pressure was overwhelming. could result in unintended and negative consequences. after weighing all of the arguments i have vetoed senate bill 1062. >> opponents on the decision as a victory for gay rights. >> the governor did the right thing. i still see a lot of criticism out there that the governor waited too long, criticisms that the legislature should have never brought this in the first place. that happened and now we need to move forward. >> since the supreme court backed a qua
of the law substantially burdenening somebody's exercise of religion. arizona is one of many that has laws like that. so what was different about this arizona law is that it would have expanded the law to apply not just to individuals but to businesss that get sued by someone in a private lawsuit, someone that they refuse to serve and what got the sponsors of the bill concerned was a decision last year in neighboring new mexico when the supreme court there ruled against a be queer key photographers who refused to photograph the ceremony of two women. and this is exactly at the heart of the challenge to the obamacare law that the supreme court will hear next month. >> gwen rattled off this week's different developments. you've got fights in state houses and in courthouses. what else is going on? >> a texas judge became the latest to strike down a ban on same sex marriage saying that it's -- there's no good reason to do that. gwen: how many states have done that? >> in terms of court action, six or seven. we have 17 states in which same sex marriage is allowed. we have a trial that starred t
of legislation. tell me how this is tied to, and maybe differs from arizona's freedom of religion laws. >> that is an interesting question, how did arizona get to this moment? i wish we could speak to that, but where would we begin. the freedom of religion law passed in 1999 and existed at the federal lovel level in 1993. we inserted a line in this newest incarnation of the bill that talks specifically about a belief being sincerely held. that's where people are getting hung up and feeling like everybody feels that their beliefs are sincerely held. that is language added to this bill, and some say it clarifies. >> say the governor signs this piece of legislation into law, and businesses turn away gays and lesbians lead to go discrimination lawsuits. would it be up to a judge to determine the sincerity of a business ow owner's religious convictions? >> reporter: in arizona the state does not prohibit gay or lesbian. in three of our largest cities they are. in that case the city would have to bring case against the individual business owner. so a person, i, couldn't bring a lawsuit again
, regardless of their religion or sexual orientation in the united states. that's not the case in so many other countries and so this year's human rights report catalogs those kinds of abuses if someone is part of what's considered a minority group for this country or that. it is a very comprehensive document, tony. >> and roz, according to the state department who are did worst offenders of violating human rights laws? >> they don't rank countries per se, but what they do instead is point out what they consider the more egregious violations of human rights. such was the case on thursday when the report was released, about the way people were treated inside syria. if they are supporting the political opposition that wants to replace bashar al-assad they are targeted. if they live in communities where people are opposed to be government where people also happen to live they are targeted as well. the report made a point of saying the u.s. was using both chemical weapons as well as traditional weapons into not opposing the government, they said this is just beyond the pale in terms of the way the
's exercise of religion without showing compelling government interest. the orange states are states that if passed rfra-like provisions by court decision. you can see that in the wall street journal if you want to learn more about that. we are skipping with our colors. renÉe is waiting in california. good morning. caller: i wanted to correct one thing here. iticus that talks about man laying down with man. you guys get the views from the homosexual side but you also need to get the other side here. i don't believe in same-sex marriage. i hate the fact that people always want to compare homosexuality with racial. that has nothing to do with it. it is a lifestyle that they choose. i am an a store and christian, i should not be forced to make a cake for two women or two men. that is my right. the thing about it is, god will in the end.al say his were never changes. it is all the same. it was a sin before and it's a sin now. god does not hate the sinner, he hates the sin. you worry about the example of the wedding cake. that example also brought up in today's washington post in their l
exercise of religion, sincerely held religious beliefs. >> opponents of the bill claimed victory for an open attack on gays. >> this showed the nation that not all arizonians are like extremists, and that there are good people, and we want to lead the country forward, not backwards. >> a statement was issued, praising her decision. >> major corporations weighed in too. apple, american airlines, delta and the n.f.l. all urged governor jan brewer to veto the measure. >> it was a combination. business community and activist. >> it sent a message to the governor. >> and speaking of the business community, supporters of the bill have been saying that there is a lot of support by local businesses. one of our producers here made several calls, 50 businesses, dry cleaners, hair salons, and could not find a local business behind it. >> thank you. we should point out the veto of the bill in arizona does not end the debate open over religious freedom nationwide. it got further, being a signature away from the governor to become war. similar balls failed to pass in kansas, idaho, south dakot
because of their religion so she didn't think the bill made accepts. your organization release add statement today that read "this legislation would give homosexuals more protection than they did under the current law". given nobody could come up with example of the discrimination, how could they have more protection under a law essentially created to allow people who didn't want to serve gays getting married with things like photography or wedding cakes? >> well, the irony is that arizona does not currently have sexual orientation listed as a protected category in either their employment nondiscrimination laws or public accommodation laws. so the current state of the law in arizona is that anybody can discriminate against gays at any time for any reason or for no reason whatsoever. this bill deals only with when a government action conflicts with a person's sincerely held religious belief. it requires the person asserting that right to be able to prove that this is motivated by the religious belief, that that belief is sincerely held, and that the government action is a substantia
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 108 (some duplicates have been removed)